Turkey's constitutional referendum

Erdogan pulls it off

TURKEY'S mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) party has won a ringing endorsement from voters in a bitterly contested referendum on constitutional changes that are poised to raise democratic standards and further erode the powers of the country's once omnipotent generals.

Final results show that 58% of Turks approved the government's proposed changes to the constitution, which was written by the army after it overthrew the government in 1980. Both government and opposition leaders cast the referendum as a vote of confidence in the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Erdogan's AK party has governed Turkey since 2002, when it catapulted to single-party rule on a platform of democratic reform and market liberalisation.

Sunday's result signals continued support for AK in the run-up to nationwide parliamentary elections that must be held by next June. There is widespread speculation that, should AK replicate yesterday's success in the national poll, Mr Erdogan will push to elevate himself to the presidency when it becomes vacant in 2012.

The EU has welcomed the constitutional changes, which, among other things, make it possible for coup plotters to be tried henceforth in civilian courts. Yet the opposition, led by Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the newly elected leader of the pro-secular Republican People's party (CHP), has sought to portray the amendments as a final assault against the secular order introduced by the founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk. The package includes measures to bar gender discrimination, bolster civil liberties and protect personal privacy. But these, the opposition charges, were no more than “bubble wrap” used to conceal more invidious changes.

The core of the package is a major overhaul of the judiciary. This gives the president and parliament greater say over the appointments of senior judges and prosecutors, and expands the size of the constitutional court and that of the judicial body in charge of appointments. The opposition claims AK will use the changes to pack the courts with Islamists, paving the way to religious rule. Some mutter darkly about an impending “civilian coup”.

Such fears are exaggerated. And there is scant evidence that AK has used its time in office to subvert secularism. Yet the 42% of Turks who voted against the package will have only had their concerns deepened by Mr Erdogan's autocratic tone. During the referendum campaign he accused those opposed to the package of being “in favour of army coups” and went as far as to warn that they would be “eliminated”.

Maps depicting the pattern of voting in yesterday's referendum show a deeply fragmented country. Those voting against the package were concentrated in a slim crescent ringing the country's prosperous western and south-western shores. In Istanbul, the country's largest city, the trend was close to that nationwide, with 55% in favour and 45% against. The nationalist oppostion, led by Devlet Bahceli, took the biggest bashing of all, with voters in Mr Bahceli's native province of Osmaniye supporting the package.

In a bid to assuage the naysayers, Mr Erdogan declared in his victory speech that those who voted against the package were "worthy of respect too”. But pro-secular urbanites remain unswayed. After his speech Mr Erdogan and the president, Abdullah Gul, showed up at the final of the world basketball championship in Istanbul, which pitted Turkey against America. They were greeted with loud boos.

In newsrooms in Istanbul, downhearted pro-secular editors joked darkly about moving to Izmir, where "no" votes prevailed. But elsewhere the mood was festive. A coalition of leftists and liberals who campaigned in favour of the package were gearing up to press charges against Kenan Evren, the general who led the 1980 coup. In the aftermath of the overthrow of the government, over half a million Turks were arrested and tortured, and 51 executed by hanging. Sunday's result paves the way for the prosecution of the generals responsible.

Despite his resounding victory, Mr Erdogan cannot afford to be complacent. Kurdish voters in the country's restive south-east provinces largely complied with orders from the largest pro-Kurdish party, Peace and Democracy (BDP), to boycott the referendum on the ground that it failed to address their demands for greater political and cultural autonomy. This in turn points to the enduring power of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which has been engaged in an armed struggle for autonomy for the past 26 years and with which the BDP is closely allied. The PKK has threatened to call off its recently declared unilateral ceasefire unless Mr Erdogan moves on Kurdish rights. This in turn points to the fact that so long as the Kurdish problem remains unresolved, democracy in Turkey will rest on fragile foundations.

the meaning of the democracy for MR.Erdogan is ''Yet the 42% of Turks who voted against the package will have only had their concerns deepened by Mr Erdogan’s autocratic tone. During the referendum campaign he accused those opposed to the package of being “in favour of army coups” and went as far as to warn that they would be “eliminated”.''

Mr. Erdogan ! we are waiting for you to eliminate us! nearly half of the voters said NO, and Mr. Erdogan says they are “in favour of army coups” and should be 'eliminated' ! i think Mr. Erdogan is confusing turkey with Iran or China ?

Sadly, people will soon realize that there is no such thing as a mildly islamist government. Now that the judicial barriers have been lifted, Mr. Erdoğan will go full speed ahead towards an islamic republic in Turkey.

I have asked previously and been berated for my efforts. In view of the fact that all restrictions on Kurdish cultural activities have now been removed. Festevals can be celibrated, language can be spoken etc. What more do the Kurds want. If they wholeheartedly accept the integrity of the Turkish state, then what is the reason for the continuing insurgency. It would be much better if they paused and produced a document detailing the rights that they believe that they lack. It would also be useful to have an English language version. You never know some of the percieved deficient rights may already exist. With regard to teaching in Kurdish, what is stopping the Kurdish nationalist party from setting up a school that provides instruction in kurdish. In any case, it is something that the kurds will need to provide themselves, what do Turks know about teaching in kurdish

@Corduene,
I admit I am not well up on Kurdish complaints. That is why I am suggesting that a document should be produced. Instead you berate me for asking for information. It is entirely your responsibility to detail your grievances, which you seem totally unwilling to do. I suspect that the Turkish state may be in the in the same state of ignorance. If you produced a document, then it would provide a basis for future negotiation. If on the other hand, there are terrorist attacks on the Turkish state for no apparent reason, how do expect the Turks to react. Regardless of what you think of me, the Turkish people, or the Turkish state, you should set out a Kurdish bill of rights in a document. Up until now you have been relying on sympathy from nations in Europe which derives from the fact that many Europeans unreasonably resent the very existence of the Turks.

In a democracy, there is the concept of a loyal opposition. This is demonstrated in the UK by the leader of the opposition receiving a salary from the government. I don't know if the main opposition leader in Turkey receives a salary from the government. If Mr Erdogan wants to demonstrate his democratic credentials, he could provide such a salary, if it does not already exist. The other thing that he needs to avoid is making the country more Islamist. He needs to promote a pluralistic society. However, he needs the help of the vociferous minorities to do this by their demonstrating that they wholeheartedly accept the Turkish state within its current boundaries. The said minorities should stop asking for what are privilidges, which are dresseed up as rights. As far as I can see they have all the rights of any Turkish citizen.

The foremost point is that the reform is a rejection to their army's self-proclaimed right to seize power whenever it sees fit as guardian of the republic. And it subordinates a justice system that had grown into a state within a state. It is learnt that for many older Turks the day of the referendum awakened bad memories because it was held on the 30th anniversary of the Turkish military coup. Though the 1980 coup brought some good things for Turkey, i.e. it punished many people those were responsible for the political terrorism in the preceding three years that killed some 1,200 to 1,500 people reportedly in each of the three preceding years. That stopped after the coup, so the generals saved lives. At least 750,000 weapons were reportedly confiscated, 65,000 arrested, and 27 executed. Another estimate says that more than half a million people were reportedly imprisoned during the military dictatorship and more than 500 sentenced to death, and hundreds died of torture.

Many Turks have believably voted in favour of constitutional change for that reason. The constitution, made legitimate by a referendum that is now being overcome ensured greater stability by keeping smaller parties out of parliament. Tough reforms stabilised Turkish economy. This, too, is a legacy of the generals, i.e. stability and prosperity, the foundation for this democratic reform that we’re witnessing. However, the reform isn't really overcoming the undemocratic aspects of the constitution, i.e. the 10 percent hurdle for parliamentary representation remains in place. It excludes whole groups of society from political representation. And this isn't a change of system but a transition of power within the system. By taking over the appointment of judicial staff and undermining the power of the army, Mr. Erdogan’s government is trying to take over the lower-ranking long-term positions of power, actually.

Anyway, the most serious problem with this reform is that, maybe, the AKP is dreaming of running the country as permanently as the army once did. But every party that gets the necessary majorities will be able to use these reforms in the same way to take over the state. What Turkey needs, but isn't trying to achieve, is a separation of state and ideology. The net benefit of the referendum may also be seen as a success for Mr. Erdogan, but that is not decisive as well. It isn't Mr. Erdogan who has won, but Turkish democracy. But this reform may only be a first step. The generals’ constitution that is geared towards protecting the state from its citizens rather than strengthening the rights of citizens must now be comprehensively overhauled.

I fully agree with the "first sentence" on paragraph 5: "The core of the package is a major overhaul of the judiciary!" The average person is probably clueless by what the referendum in Turkey really means. And of course, there are those with an anti-Islamic agenda that insinuate Tayip Erdogan is an Islamist with an impetus to smash the secularist nature of Turkey established by Kemal Attaturk. But the facts do not support that phony argument.

A short Turkey matter-of-fact review: 50 years ago, Turkey was a poor agrarian country in which an elite class and the military lived in splendor, but 95% of Turks lived in poverty. In 1961, Turkish prime minister Adnan Menderes - who used to spend a lot of time in European casinos and night clubs, and spent freely public funds in luxury hotels with prostitutes, was deposed by the military, convicted for corruption, and hanged publicly!!!! Since then, the military and the judiciary established themselves as the real power
in Turkey, and the Turks respected that as "a behind the scenes" real power to keep the Menderes-years
corruption from resurfacing. The Turkish president and prime ministers since then were just marionettes of the military and high judiciary class. Prime ministers lasted about 1 year in office, and Ismet Inonu, Bulent Ecevit, and Suleiman Demirel were recycled in-and-out of prime ministerships numerous times. Others had 1-time short tenures. Non had any real authority; they followed the military-judiciary cues, or they were thrown out of office unceremoniously!

In 1996, the Welfare Party, of Mr. Necmetin Erbakan won the elections. The party provided free clinics, and
freed food and public services for the poor -like Hezbollah does in Lebanon, because it was an Islamic based party, and it followed the guidance of the Holy Quran to give to the poor. That didn't seat well with the elite class, and the Judiciary disqualified him from office within a year for "threatening the secularist nature" of Turkey!

And that is what the present referendum pushed by Mr. Tayiip Erdogan was all about. In short it comes into this question: Will Turkey be governed by the will of the people, or by an entrenched elite "non-elected judiciary class" that do not have to answer to anyone? What is the value of elections when the elected president and prime minister are powerless to implement the programs promised to the electorate? Why shall the elected president and prime minister have to look over their shoulders, or be afraid to implement programs under the fear that they may be disqualified from office like Necmetin Erbakan?

The constitutional referendum in Turkey, therefore, was needed to return the power which has been usurped so far by the military-judiciary elite to the people. It is time for the military-judiciary dictatorship under the phony facade of democratic process in Turkey to come to an end. No more disposable or shackled by the military-judiciary prime ministers! We live now in year 2010 - not in the 1960's! Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Just what the world needs : another Islamist state . The voting map says it all : ignorant 10th century misogynist goatherds bring down the republic . Sharia law is no doubt on the way with the new judiciary . What is truly striking is the lack of insight the once vaunted Economist brings to this debacle , so let me help . This a BAD thing a very BAD thing.

to Courdune and ozatmk,
As a reader of your comments, ozatmk seems like more ignorant and partisan than Courdune. However, Courdune becomes very emotional because she/he feels the sufferings of minorities such as Kurds. In my opinion, government should take responsibilities or provide resources to teach Kurdish. Canada is a great example. In Quebec, students are taught both in French and English. Government takes taxes from everybody regardless of their ethnicities therefore, should it also provide resources or incentives to keep up with minority rights. Please be humane not a human!!!!